PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, TX, VT, WA

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Subscribe
Previous Issues

SCOTUS Denies Certiorari in PFAS-Related Removal Jurisdiction Cases

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in two lawsuits brought by the State of Maryland and the State of South Carolina against 3M and other defendants arising out of alleged PFAS contamination in their states. 3M removed those lawsuits under the federal officer removal statute—arguing the alleged contamination must have come from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), for which 3M has a government contractor defense. This is the same strategy 3M has used to remove AFFF lawsuits across the country to federal court, and then 3M has those lawsuits consolidated in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL). Originally, after removal, the district courts remanded the lawsuits brought by Maryland and South Carolina, but—as previously reported by the PFAS Primer—the Fourth Circuit reversed and held that 3M properly removed those lawsuits. In their petition for writ of certiorari, Maryland and South Carolina argued that 3M’s removal was improper because the states do not allege PFAS contamination caused by AFFF. The states also noted that the Fourth Circuit’s decision creates a circuit split with the First, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari will allow 3M to continue to remove PFAS-related lawsuits to federal court and may allow 3M to continue to transfer them to the AFFF MDL, even when the lawsuits are not on their face related to AFFF.

March 2, 2026 | State of Maryland v. 3M Co., State of South Carolina v. 3M Co., No. 25-517 (U.S.).

Court Rips Off the Band-Aid and Dismisses Consumer PFAS Lawsuit

The District of New Jersey dismissed a class action brought against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue alleging the presence of PFAS in the defendants’ Band-Aid products. The plaintiffs alleged that they “reasonably believed” that the Band-Aids were “safe for use around, adjacent to, and near skin and open wounds” and that they would have paid less for those for those products had they known they allegedly contained PFAS. In their motions to dismiss, the defendants argued that, among other things, the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, and the court agreed. The court first rejected the plaintiffs’ “benefit of the bargain” alleged injury because they failed to show any adverse health consequences and failed to allege any actionable misrepresentations. The court separately rejected the plaintiffs’ “premium price” and “alternative product” theories of injury because the plaintiffs did not allege that they would in fact purchase other products instead of Band-Aids.

February 2, 2026 | Aronstein v. Kenvue Inc., No. 3:24-cv-04665 (D.N.J.).

D.C. Circuit Denies EPA’s Request to Vacate Drinking-Water Limits for Four PFAS

A D.C. Circuit motions panel denied the EPA’s motion to vacate four of six PFAS limits for drinking water. Industry groups and water utilities had challenged the EPA’s final rule setting maximum contaminant levels in drinking water for certain PFAS chemicals. The EPA sought to vacate four of the six PFAS limits (for HPFO-DA, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS), arguing they were invalid due to procedural errors by the previous administration, but did not walk back the limits for PFOA or PFOS. In denying the EPA’s request to vacate, the court found the merits of the parties’ positions were “not so clear as to warrant summary action.” As a result of the denial, the six PFAS limits remain in place while the litigation proceeds on the merits, creating uncertainty for water utilities because any final decision is unlikely before the rule’s deadlines take effect.

January 21, 2026 | American Water Works Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir.).

Michigan Court Tosses State PFAS Cleanup Claims Against Airport, Citing Federal Aviation Law Preemption

A Michigan state court dismissed an enforcement action by the State of Michigan against the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority seeking remediation of PFAS contamination allegedly caused by the airport’s use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). The court held that the federal aviation safety law preempts the state’s cleanup mandates. The ruling emphasizes that for decades, the Federal Aviation Administration required commercial airports to use AFFF meeting a military specification that mandated PFAS, meaning that the alleged contamination stems from federally mandated safety standards rather than discretionary airport conduct. The court concluded that the use of AFFF at the commercial airport is a matter of aviation safety and therefore subject to federal preemption, barring the plaintiffs from litigating the claim against the defendant. The decision appears to be a case of first impression—an action seeking to enforce cleanup requirements against a commercial airport over PFAS containing AFFF.

November 24, 2025 | Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy v. Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority, No. 23-08850-CE (Mich. Cir.

Florida Tribe Sues Multiple Manufacturers Alleging PFAS Contamination

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida filed suit in the District of South Carolina against multiple manufacturers alleging contamination of tribal lands and waters from PFAS-containing AFFF. The complaint alleges that decades of AFFF use introduced PFAS into groundwater and surface waters within the tribe’s Everglades homeland, allegedly contaminating rivers, lakes, streams, and indigenous fish tribal members have long relied on. The tribe alleges that PFAS have caused elevated risks of cancer, heart problems, and other health issues. The plaintiff seeks to recover remediation costs and other damages and asserts several causes of action, including negligence, trespass, strict liability, and fraudulent concealment.

October 29, 2025 | Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. 3M Company, No. 2:25-cv-13186 (D.S.C.).